Curriculum reform should be discussed fully, not rushed

The Education Ministry has started preparing curriculum reform in response to Prof Pavich Tongroach’s strategy for the improvement of Thailand’s basic education. 

Pavich has insisted that the current national curriculum, which is the improved version of the 2001 curriculum, is getting out of date. 

“The curriculum should be revised every five to 10 years,” Pavich has pointed out. “The world is changing fast.” 

Although his reasoning is not totally groundless, no one should ignore the fact that any such reform must be well planned and all necessary preparations made before its launch. 

At a recent seminar held by the Consortium of Sixteen Education Deans, 99 per cent of participants saw eye-to-eye that the launch of curriculum reform must be put on hold for at least a few years. 

Prapansiri Susaorat, who is on the consortium’s board, said it takes time to gather opinions from all parties – curriculum experts to students, to employers, to parents, and to guilds/professional organisations. 

“The comprehensive information will allow the identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the current curriculum. Such information will be useful in drafting the new curriculum,” she said. 

It took six years to revise the 2001 curriculum and launch the improved version in 2008, but the efforts to prepare the new curriculum, which was touted to bring drastic changes, relied mainly on a six-member panel and it had rushed to meet its six-month deadline.

“Why do we need to be in such a hurry?” she asked.

Policymakers should not ignore the impacts from the new curriculum, she said. Teacher-training institutions, for example, will need time to amend their curriculum to ensure their graduates can work efficiently with the new curriculum for schools. Incumbent teachers must also design new study materials for their students. 

“Children at the same time should know well from the very beginning what the new curriculum expects of them,” she said. 

On a different occasion, Chulalongkorn University lecturer Sathon Vijarnwannaluk said he had heard that the new curriculum would combine mathematics with science, as core subjects would be reduced from eight to six, so there might be less class time devoted to science and maths. 

“Thai students, on average, are not good at mathematics and science. Authorities should promote these subjects rather than do something that will adversely affect them,” he said.

Though not yet official, it is widely reported that the Education Ministry plans to cut the class hours for each primary student in a year from 800 to only 600. Children will then be encouraged to study outside the classroom for a total of 400 hours.

Sathon said the definition of outside-classroom learning must be clear-cut, otherwise some schools would take this opportunity to organise various kinds of activities and charge parents extra fees.

Concerns and complaints have also popped up every now and then over the new curriculum. Sometimes, word spreads that Thai performing arts and physical education will be dropped. Confusion and outrage have emerged, with the Education Ministry struggling to dismiss rumours later on and explaining that the new curriculum will still cover all necessary subjects. Thai performing arts, for example, will become part of the subject of art, not totally removed. 

Pitak Sotthayakom recently compiled comments from various specialists for the Ombudsman’s seminar on the new curriculum. Many of the comments served as a stark warning against any rush to launch the new curriculum.

“Do not start the reform when personnel, learning materials, teacher manuals, knowledge-management plans and students’ performance evaluation guidelines are not yet ready. Reform with a lack of preparedness and preparations will simply be a waste of time and effort. It will hurt students too,” one of the comments said.

The specialists also pointed out that Thai authorities should develop the curriculum and improve students’ quality in line with the country’s context. Perhaps, there is no need to become obsessed with PISA (Programme for International Students Assessment) or Singapore’s model for educational development.

I reckon that listening to the opinions of others is useful and if policymakers pay attention, they will be able to create better changes for Thai education.

Don’t forget that a poorly-planned change will only lead Thailand’s educational system from this crisis to another crisis.

Change should never be made just for the sake of change. Changes should be made to the curriculum only when they are set to serve Thai children and Thailand better.